Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

TheNegotiator

The Question of Randomness

Recommended Posts

I humbly disagree. Profitability of a trading system is defined by your ability to press winners and to run fast in the face of adversity.

Mathematicians (or any scholar, for that matter) make for terrible traders.

Most think they have to be right in order to win, hence they fail to bail if the trade turns bad. Yep, wide generalizations FTW :rofl:

 

But we disgress... ;)

 

how did you come up with this conclusion?

is this a personal hunch? or a "FACT"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Profitability of a trading system is defined by your ability to press winners and to run fast in the face of adversity.

 

Profit comes from positive expectancy. Trading is a negative sum game.

 

This is not about the question of disagreeing, I'm a little surprised because this is the first time I've heard such perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avarice,

 

I understand what you're saying but " Profitability of a trading system is defined by your ability to press winners and to run fast in the face of adversity" is not a generalization.

 

"Profitability of a trading system is defined by your ability to press winners and to run fast in the face of adversity " is highly system specific, made to appear to be a ubiquitous generalization by not explicitly identifying what kind of system... it's not a safe robust generalization ...

 

zdo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After getting 19 out of 20 correct on the 2nd try at Aurora, I'd have to say that the human eye can learn to identify the difference between a real data series and a computer generated series, and do it very quickly. But is this skill useful for profit?

 

To the point regarding technical analysis: Most people who come into trading never question the roots of technical analysis or the nature of financial (price) data.That usually comes later after finding that the past may not do a very reliable job of predicting the future, despite how many lines or types of analysis are applied. Traders should be required to take a course in econometrics to learn about how to identify the true nature of price data and how to handle nonstationary time series. Financial data has stochastic trend. Because price is not deterministic, all those fancy TA indicators are useless when applied to raw price data, as they are all designed to work with stationary data.

 

The real kicker is that in most cases those moving averages that are so often applied to price by traders to predict future price movement have a lower order of integration than the underlying price data! It's like trying to predict a complex system with a simple system. Exactly how is that going to work? If only traders could profit from buying or selling a moving average (rather than the underlying price). Then it would be relatively easy to profit.

 

Does something make you think that a trader can't profit from trading moving average?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I first came across this ages ago it made me sit up and it did the same when I came across it again recently. Take a look at the chart I have attached. What is it you ask? Oil, gold, S&P 500. Nope, it's nothing. It's a chart which I had excel generate simply by getting it to choose a tick higher, a tick lower or unchanged from the last price. But it looks very familiar doesn't it?

 

Now we all know the markets aren't random :stick out tongue:, but really when you look at an example like this it makes you wonder. What are the implications of such an exercise?

 

Here are some thoughts:

 

  1. There is an element of perceived randomness to the market at times which may or may not perpetuate further 'random' activity.
     
  2. Markets are not random at all as conditions present at any given moment, caused the subsequent price movement. However, when you look at historical charts, they have the appearance of being randomly generated as there is no context when viewing historical prices.
     
  3. Unless we assign useful context to market movements, any analysis which is done is never going to be much better than random.
     
  4. Would you trade the product in my chart if you knew it were completely random???

 

What do you guys reckon?

 

if human behavior is random, the market will be random,

because the market is a reflection of human behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been some interesting math relating to this exact question.

 

The process goes something like this:

 

1. Assume that whatever you were trying to evaluate as a prediction method got lucky by random chance, and given enough chances, could get lucky with random data.

 

2. Set this as your null hypothesis.

 

3. Prove it's not true. Disprove your null hypothesis.

 

The latest math solving this problem even had a patent issued and was incorporated into analysis software for the financial markets.

 

Google: white's reality check bootstrap data-snooping

 

Use combinations of the above words to see papers related to the topic.

 

The process of the solution is not that difficult, and there are lots of clever methods including beating the monkey.

 

If you are in the business of evaluating strategies then it's useful stuff.

 

Something i am very interested in as well if anyone wants to swap ideas.

 

Cj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Profit comes from positive expectancy. Trading is a negative sum game.

 

This is not about the question of disagreeing, I'm a little surprised because this is the first time I've heard such perception.

 

He could not be more right. Profits come from knowing how to take more money from the market than you leave in the market. Huge profits come from being at the right place at the right time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He could not be more right. Profits come from knowing how to take more money from the market than you leave in the market. Huge profits come from being at the right place at the right time.

 

Maybe we are overlapping things.

 

"Huge profits come from being at the right place at the right time." You need a setup with positive expectancy to accomplish this. You cannot simple make profits by buying out anywhere and following 'money management'.

 

Timing and money management are two totally different things. Timing is achieved through selection of non-random pattens only (your 'edge'). Timing has no meaning in purely random data.. Money management can maximize your productivity, not create it. Again this is the same reason mathematicians do not rule the market.

 

Try backtesting same system on random data and real data- while considering slippage and commissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe we are overlapping things.

 

"Huge profits come from being at the right place at the right time." You need a setup with positive expectancy to accomplish this. You cannot simple make profits by buying out anywhere and following 'money management'.

 

Timing and money management are two totally different things. Timing is achieved through selection of non-random pattens only (your 'edge'). Timing has no meaning in purely random data.. Money management can maximize your productivity, not create it. Again this is the same reason mathematicians do not rule the market.

 

Try backtesting same system on random data and real data- while considering slippage and commissions.

 

For someone with the capability, it should be quite possible. It sure seems as though mm alone could produce profits. To eliminate slippage, assume all limit fills. Enter anywhere with 2 contracts and a 2 tick stop. On winners, take 1 contract off at +2 ticks, and move to b/e +1, or +2 with some other target #2 of +4, +6, etc. or some trailing stop. Over a long enough series, you'll have half of the chart having runs of varying lengths below your entry, and hence of 2 tick losses (x 2 contracts + commissions); and half of the time have at least 2 tick winners, with some 4 tick, 6 tick, 8 tick, etc., depending on how one configures the target #2 or trailing stop. Why shouldn't this create enough to offset the commissions, as low as they are now? Just 1 tick of extra (over 2 ticks) profit offsets commissions. I'm not saying this IS right; just that it sounds like it would work. There appear to be some here with much a much higher math background than I who can maybe point out the flaw(s) in this thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Do or Die, thanks for those links in the other thread you pointed out, on the studies done on Relative Strength. Interesting. I thought when studies supporting a non-random market were brought up that the paper/book by Andrew Lo was being referenced. Here's that one: Contents for Lo & MacKinlay: A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street

 

Also, aside from MA's, which price often doesn't react as strongly or consistently to, and hence one wonders if it's random when it does, trendline support - to me - seems much more assured and predictable, whether horizontal due to prior price action there, or angled in a trending market. But I have no objective proof of that, other than looking at a chart and noting (in the case of horizontal s/r) that if price turned there previously, you at least get a greater than "average" reaction there again. Which, as was previously pointed out by Tams(?), makes sense as price is caused by human behavior, and people see what price did there previously, and react to that with their buying/selling. And, hence, not random. As to Do or Die's assertion that one wouldn't trade that (double-top) all alone, I'd say that one could, albeit for a scalp. That you'll get a predictable-enough stronger than average reaction there, even if it subsequently breaks through. Enough for a scalp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe we are overlapping things.

 

"Huge profits come from being at the right place at the right time." You need a setup with positive expectancy to accomplish this. You cannot simple make profits by buying out anywhere and following 'money management'.

 

Timing and money management are two totally different things. Timing is achieved through selection of non-random pattens only (your 'edge'). Timing has no meaning in purely random data.. Money management can maximize your productivity, not create it. Again this is the same reason mathematicians do not rule the market.

 

Try backtesting same system on random data and real data- while considering slippage and commissions.

 

Huge profits come from being at the right place at the right time and knowing how to take more money from the market than the market takes from you.

 

Being at the the right place at the right time is luck. knowing how to take money from the market is not. Knowing how to take money from the market is your consistently is the "edge".

 

One can certainly not have an edge and be at the right time at the right place and make a huge profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does something make you think that a trader can't profit from trading moving average?

 

I'm sure it's possible to create profitable systems out of moving averages in the short term or for a trader to profit from such in the short term. I have done this. But long term profitability is or should be the goal of any trader or system. The problem is that because the data that the average is applied to is of a higher order than the moving average, and because price data has stochastic trend, meaning the mean moves over time, and can have infinate variance, a moving average (which is designed to work on mean stationary data) does not adapt very well (nor can it).

 

To create a profitable trading strategy using moving averages requires that the average adapt to current market conditions, which isn't possible just by applying a MA to price and optimizing it to past data. The reason this isn't possible is because the price data follows a stochastic trend, meaning the trend is not deterministic, follows no set pattern and because the mean moves and price doesn't have to return to the mean, the whole approach is flawed. As a result, the average will give false signals and will not do a very good job of describing the actual trading opportunities. Differencing and detrending the data will actually create data that is of the same order of integration as the MA. So a MA applied to differenced, detrended data should be useful. The kicker though, is that you don't buy or sell the diff/detrended data, you buy/sell the raw prices, so while a MA applied to differenced / detrended data my prove useful as an indicator, finding a fixed relationship that can be exploited is still a must if one wants to profit long-term from using a moving average strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if human behavior is random, the market will be random,

because the market is a reflection of human behavior.

 

The logical implication of this is that if human behavior ISN'T random (which it generally is not) then the market will be non-random. However, just because a trader who places orders does them for a particular economic reason that isn't random, does not mean that the combination of all those determined actions of all market participants are not random. I think it is useful to replace the term "random" with non-deterministic or unpredictable. Can you (or anyone) really predict what orders will come into the market next to drive price up or down? If the answer is no, then I would argue that the markets are non-deterministic and may be considered a random walk for analytical purposes.

 

On a slightly different topic, Galton showed that when a large number of random events (coin tosses) are combined, they form a normal distribution. A reference may be found (among many sites) here: The Normal Curve and Galton's Board

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The logical implication of this is that if human behavior ISN'T random (which it generally is not) then the market will be non-random. However, just because a trader who places orders does them for a particular economic reason that isn't random, does not mean that the combination of all those determined actions of all market participants are not random. I think it is useful to replace the term "random" with non-deterministic or unpredictable. Can you (or anyone) really predict what orders will come into the market next to drive price up or down? If the answer is no, then I would argue that the markets are non-deterministic and may be considered a random walk for analytical purposes.

 

On a slightly different topic, Galton showed that when a large number of random events (coin tosses) are combined, they form a normal distribution. A reference may be found (among many sites) here: The Normal Curve and Galton's Board

You are going down a path that was not my intent. But you are free to conjure up deductions or "creations" of your imagination. After all, none of these are new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huge profits come from being at the right place at the right time and knowing how to take more money from the market than the market takes from you.

 

Being at the the right place at the right time is luck. knowing how to take money from the market is not. Knowing how to take money from the market is your consistently is the "edge".

 

One can certainly not have an edge and be at the right time at the right place and make a huge profit.

 

I believe you have a couple of typo's in your post, though I think I understand what you're saying, MM. But, so that I don't misunderstand, would you care to share anything at all by way of an explanation as to HOW one does the above? I mean, really, you make money by taking more out than you're giving?! Who'd have thunk that...

 

But I think you're agreeing with me, that the edge is (or in my words, CAN be) in the money management aspect. Though I'm not sure how you view the "being in the right place at the right time" aspect of it, particularly when you've said that that part is random. Again, I'd appreciate any expounding that you can do on your thoughts, and how best to take more than one gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: PM White's posts on MA's, I thought (and think) that I was out of my league earlier when someone opined re: mathematicians and trading. But I think this is a perfect example of what that poster may have been alluding to. Mr. White explained a great mathematical, objective, random data-based analysis of what may or may not be supposed from that data. But that all is pointless, as the data is not simply random (though I guess that's what we're trying to prove - or not - in this thread). So, I'll just say that my assertion is that as people are those who determine what price is printed on that next price bar, and they factor in what's come before it (therefore it's not an independent event), there is a reason that a moving average may have more of an effect that posited in those posts.

 

Because the reality is that traders, who are the ones who determine where that next price prints, are watching a moving average and are often (enough) trading based upon that. As well as trendlines. On some timeframes more than on others. I'm always wary of my own perceptions of charts - always keeping in mind Taleb's Fooled by Randomness book and principles - but I've seen enough daily charts that show a very strong reaction right at the 50 and 200 sma that I'm convinced that it isn't merely a coincidence. No objective proof, mind you, but perhaps Prof. Lo's paper/book has that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure it's possible to create profitable systems out of moving averages in the short term or for a trader to profit from such in the short term. I have done this. But long term profitability is or should be the goal of any trader or system. The problem is that because the data that the average is applied to is of a higher order than the moving average, and because price data has stochastic trend, meaning the mean moves over time, and can have infinate variance, a moving average (which is designed to work on mean stationary data) does not adapt very well (nor can it).

 

To create a profitable trading strategy using moving averages requires that the average adapt to current market conditions, which isn't possible just by applying a MA to price and optimizing it to past data. The reason this isn't possible is because the price data follows a stochastic trend, meaning the trend is not deterministic, follows no set pattern and because the mean moves and price doesn't have to return to the mean, the whole approach is flawed. As a result, the average will give false signals and will not do a very good job of describing the actual trading opportunities. Differencing and detrending the data will actually create data that is of the same order of integration as the MA. So a MA applied to differenced, detrended data should be useful. The kicker though, is that you don't buy or sell the diff/detrended data, you buy/sell the raw prices, so while a MA applied to differenced / detrended data my prove useful as an indicator, finding a fixed relationship that can be exploited is still a must if one wants to profit long-term from using a moving average strategy.

 

Seems like you won't be using a moving average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The logical implication of this is that if human behavior ISN'T random (which it generally is not) then the market will be non-random. However, just because a trader who places orders does them for a particular economic reason that isn't random, does not mean that the combination of all those determined actions of all market participants are not random. I think it is useful to replace the term "random" with non-deterministic or unpredictable. Can you (or anyone) really predict what orders will come into the market next to drive price up or down? If the answer is no, then I would argue that the markets are non-deterministic and may be considered a random walk for analytical purposes.

 

On a slightly different topic, Galton showed that when a large number of random events (coin tosses) are combined, they form a normal distribution. A reference may be found (among many sites) here: The Normal Curve and Galton's Board

 

Think of it as cause and effect.

 

The specific circumstances affecting a single trader lead to his response, as you noted, This is also true of all traders in the available pool (ie. currently at work) at any given time. All of these individually specific determinants, intertwine to become the determinant for the price action at any given time.

 

Simply because we can not know with certainty all the factors that will affect any one individual at any point in time and the response it will generate, much less a group, does not infer that the result generated is random.

 

If you replicate the cause you replicate the effect.

 

The observable price action in a chart refutes randomness. Random price action would look like this: 101, 102, 500, 0.25, 50........... It wouldn't be confined by the succession of factors affecting current events into the future.

 

These factors impose order to price movements. The fact we can not predict it with certainty signifies we don't fully understand how it functions, are unable to analyze all the variables, or ignore some of the factors which determine the effects manifested at any given time, giving the appearance of a random outcome. Thus, there is a lack of certainly, of an always inconclusive analysis, and a reliance on a degree of luck in trading. Yet, just as the price action demonstrates a certain orderliness, we can reduce the degree of luck in any trade by carefully choosing our trades through analysis, as opposed to trading at random, at any time without a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you have a couple of typo's in your post, though I think I understand what you're saying, MM. But, so that I don't misunderstand, would you care to share anything at all by way of an explanation as to HOW one does the above? I mean, really, you make money by taking more out than you're giving?! Who'd have thunk that...

 

But I think you're agreeing with me, that the edge is (or in my words, CAN be) in the money management aspect. Though I'm not sure how you view the "being in the right place at the right time" aspect of it, particularly when you've said that that part is random. Again, I'd appreciate any expounding that you can do on your thoughts, and how best to take more than one gives.

 

Wow. Yes typos. I was in a hurry.

 

Money management is important. Risk management, I think, is more important.

 

Quickly cut losses and admit that you might be wrong right away.Small losses are awesome compared to big losses. Doing so requires you to have a certain level of humility.

 

When you are in a profitable trade, look for reasons to stay in the trade instead of reasons to get out. In doing so, you will frequently donate a decent profit, but it allows you to achieve larger profits. I am not suggesting that you recklessly press every profitable trade. On the other hand, always be open to the possibility that something bigger could be happening. If something bigger is happening, you want to leverage your position to take advantage of it.

 

Humility and fearlessness are not items that you will find on a chart. How or why you enter make less of a difference than what you do when you are in.

 

I had a thread that detailed my trades. You need to find a method that you are comfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like you won't be using a moving average.

 

I can see how you would draw that conclusion but that isn't correct. The point I'm trying to make is that averages are tools that need to be applied to the correct type of data. Much like a child who is handed a hammer who then sees nails everywhere, technical traders have averages and therefore attempt to use them on all types of price data and in all types of ways without evaluating the nature of the tool or the underlying data.

 

Price data can be differenced and detrended. It is possible to apply averages to this type of data to get more useful results. However, as I stated before, this doesn't solve the complete problem but surely is better than 99% of the currently available technical indicators. In fact most of them would work better when applied to differenced and detrended data because most technical indicators are based on moving averages which are designed to work with time series with a stationary mean. By differencing and detrending the data it is possible to force the price data to have a stationary mean and thus price becomes a deterministic system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see how you would draw that conclusion but that isn't correct. The point I'm trying to make is that averages are tools that need to be applied to the correct type of data. Much like a child who is handed a hammer who then sees nails everywhere, technical traders have averages and therefore attempt to use them on all types of price data and in all types of ways without evaluating the nature of the tool or the underlying data.

 

Price data can be differenced and detrended. It is possible to apply averages to this type of data to get more useful results. However, as I stated before, this doesn't solve the complete problem but surely is better than 99% of the currently available technical indicators. In fact most of them would work better when applied to differenced and detrended data because most technical indicators are based on moving averages which are designed to work with time series with a stationary mean. By differencing and detrending the data it is possible to force the price data to have a stationary mean and thus price becomes a deterministic system.

 

My mistake, then, if you do intend to use MA in your trading. I do not use them, but I do see times where using a MA would have been the best solution so if someone was using one the way I would have, he would have squeezed a lot of money out of the market. Hindsight.

 

If one takes such a rigorous approach to technical analysis, she will end up standing on the sidelines, questioning whether she can ever develop a system based on lagging indicators. The problem becomes whether or not the mean remains stationary or not over the period that you are trading and using the MA.

 

I am not suggesting that a rigorous approach is a wrong approach. If you are going to rely on TA then the conclusions you draw after careful analysis using a rigorous approach will be the right conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most indicators are based on rate of change.

 

Moving averages are just one variation, albeit the most popular - especially with noobs.

 

you are calling 99% of the population noob?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • MNST Monster Beverage stock, top of range breakout above 60.45, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?MNST
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • Date: 11th July 2025.   Demand For Gold Rises As Trump Announces Tariffs!   Gold prices rose significantly throughout the week as investors took advantage of the 2.50% lower entry level. Investors also return to the safe-haven asset as the US trade policy continues to escalate. As a result, investors are taking a more dovish tone. The ‘risk-off’ appetite is also something which can be seen within the stock market. The NASDAQ on Thursday took a 0.90% dive within only 30 minutes.   Trade Tensions Escalate President Trump has been teasing with new tariffs throughout the week. However, the tariffs were confirmed on Thursday. A 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1st, along with 50% tariffs on copper and goods from Brazil. Some experts are advising that Brazil has been specifically targeted due to its association with the BRICS.   However, the President has not directly associated the tariffs with BRICS yet. According to President Trump, Brazil is targeting US technology companies and carrying out a ‘witch hunt’against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally who is currently facing prosecution for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2022 Brazilian election.   Although Brazil is one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the Americas, it is not the main concern for investors. Investors are more concerned about Tariffs on Canada. The White House said it will impose a 35% tariff on Canadian imports, effective August 1st, raised from the earlier 25% rate. This covers most goods, with exceptions under USMCA and exemptions for Canadian companies producing within the US.   It is also vital for investors to note that Canada is among the US;’s top 3 trading partners. The increase was justified by Trump citing issues like the trade deficit, Canada’s handling of fentanyl trafficking, and perceived unfair trade practices.   The President is also threatening new measures against the EU. These moves caused US and European stock futures to fall nearly 1%, while the Dollar rose and commodity prices saw small gains. However, the main benefactor was Silver and Gold, which are the two best-performing metals of the day.   How Will The Fed Impact Gold? The FOMC indicated that the number of members warming up to the idea of interest rate cuts is increasing. If the Fed takes a dovish tone, the price of Gold may further rise. In the meantime, the President pushing for a 3% rate cut sparked talk of a more dovish Fed nominee next year and raised worries about future inflation.   Meanwhile, jobless claims dropped for the fourth straight week, coming in better than expected and supporting the view that the labour market remains strong after last week’s solid payroll report. Markets still expect two rate cuts this year, but rate futures show most investors see no change at the next Fed meeting. Gold is expected to finish the week mostly flat.       Gold 15-Minute Chart     If the price of Gold increases above $3,337.50, buy signals are likely to materialise again. However, the price is currently retracing, meaning traders are likely to wait for regained momentum before entering further buy trades. According to HSBC, they expect an average price of $3,215 in 2025 (up from $3,015) and $3,125 in 2026, with projections showing a volatile range between $3,100 and $3,600   Key Takeaway Points: Gold Rises on Safe-Haven Demand. Gold gained as investors reacted to rising trade tensions and market volatility. Canada Tariffs Spark Concern. A 35% tariff on Canadian imports drew attention due to Canada’s key trade role. Fed Dovish Shift Supports Gold. Growing expectations of rate cuts and Trump’s push for a 3% cut boosted the gold outlook. Gold Eyes Breakout Above $3,337.5. Price is consolidating; a move above $3,337.50 could trigger new buy signals. Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report.   Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Michalis Efthymiou HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • Back in the early 2000s, Netflix mailed DVDs to subscribers.   It wasn’t sexy—but it was smart. No late fees. No driving to Blockbuster.   People subscribed because they were lazy. Investors bought the stock because they realized everyone else is lazy too.   Those who saw the future in that red envelope? They could’ve caught a 10,000%+ move.   Another story…   Back in the mid-2000s, Amazon launched Prime.   It wasn’t flashy—but it was fast.   Free two-day shipping. No minimums. No hassle.   People subscribed because they were impatient. Investors bought the stock because they realized everyone hates waiting.   Those who saw the future in that speedy little yellow button? They could’ve caught another 10,000%+ move.   Finally…   Back in 2011, Bitcoin was trading under $10.   It wasn’t regulated—but it worked.   No bank. No middleman. Just wallet to wallet.   People used it to send money. Investors bought it because they saw the potential.   Those who saw something glimmering in that strange orange coin? They could’ve caught a 100,000%+ move.   The people who made those calls weren’t fortune tellers. They just noticed something simple before others did.   A better way. A quiet shift. A small edge. An asymmetric bet.   The red envelope fixed late fees. The yellow button fixed waiting. The orange coin gave billions a choice.   Of course, these types of gains are rare. And they happen only once in a blue moon. That’s exactly why it’s important to notice when the conditions start to look familiar.   Not after the move. Not once it's on CNBC. But in the quiet build-up— before the surface breaks.   Enter the Blue Button Please read more here: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/netflix-amazon-bitcoin-blue  Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • What These Attacks Look Like There are several ways you could get hacked. And the threats compound by the day.   Here’s a quick rundown:   Phishing: Fake emails from your “bank.” Click the link, give your password—game over.   Ransomware: Malware that locks your files and demands crypto. Pay up, or it’s gone.   DDoS: Overwhelm a website with traffic until it crashes. Like 10,000 bots blocking the door. Often used by nations.   Man-in-the-Middle: Hackers intercept your messages on public WiFi and read or change them.   Social Engineering: Hackers pose as IT or drop infected USB drives labeled “Payroll.”   You don’t need to be “important” to be a target.   You just need to be online.   What You Can Do (Without Buying a Bunker) You don’t have to be tech-savvy.   You just need to stop being low-hanging fruit.   Here’s how:   Use a YubiKey (physical passkey device) or Authenticator app – Ditch text message 2FA. SIM swaps are real. Hackers often have people on the inside at telecom companies.   Use a password manager (with Yubikey) – One unique password per account. Stop using your dog’s name.   Update your devices – Those annoying updates patch real security holes. Use them.   Back up your files – If ransomware hits, you don’t want your important documents held hostage.   Avoid public WiFi for sensitive stuff – Or use a VPN.   Think before you click – Emails that feel “urgent” are often fake. Go to the websites manually for confirmation.   Consider Starlink in case the internet goes down – I think it’s time for me to make the leap. Don’t Panic. Prepare. (Then Invest.)   I spent an hour in that basement bar reading about cyberattacks—and watching real-world systems fall apart like dominos.   The internet going down used to be an inconvenience. Now, it’s a warning.   Cyberwar isn’t coming. It’s here.   And the next time your internet goes out, it might not just be your router.   Don’t panic. Prepare.   And maybe keep a backup plan in your back pocket. Like a local basement bar with good bourbon—and working WiFi.   As usual, we’re on the lookout for more opportunities in cybersecurity. Stay tuned.   Author: Chris Campbell (AltucherConfidential) Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.